In Tyson International Co. v. Partner Reinsurance Europe SE, Tyson International Company Limited filed a petition to vacate an arbitration award entered in its favor, and Partner Reinsurance Europe SE cross-moved to confirm the award. The parties filed four separate motions to seal certain pleadings and exhibits used in connection with the underlying arbitration including the petition to vacate and cross-motion to confirm the award, and various exhibits filed in connection with the petition consisting of the contracts and policies at issue, transcripts and opinions from the arbitration, and internal correspondence regarding the dispute.
The corrected opinion and order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York did not address the facts or claims of the underlying arbitration. Instead, the court first addressed the general standard for considering motions to seal, recognizing the “strong presumption of public access to judicial records and testimony used in Article III decision making.” The court then focused on the issues relevant when considering motions to seal in the context of a motion to confirm or vacate an arbitration award, noting that “in the context of a motion to confirm an arbitration award, it is well settled that the petition, memoranda, and other supporting documents filed in connection with the petition are judicial documents that directly affect the Court’s adjudication of that petition.” The court then addressed the documents the parties sought to seal and agreed with the parties that the contracts and policies at issue in the dispute contained “sensitive, non-public financial and business information of [Tyson], PartnerRe, and certain non-parties,” and concluded that those documents should remain under seal.
With regard to the other documents including transcripts and opinions and internal correspondence related to the dispute, the court found that sealing those documents in their entirety was not warranted and ordered the parties to file redacted versions of those documents removing strategic business information.
Tyson International Co. v. Partner Reinsurance Europe SE, No. 1:25-cv-03452 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2026).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
